Just one wikileaks back story example

Back when Arturo Beltrán Leyva was killed by Mexican Naval troops, the media covered the story as the Mexican government taking action that the U.S. applauded -- LINK:

Mexico was celebrating a rare victory in its war on drugs yesterday after one of the country’s most notorious traffickers was killed in a two-hour gun battle after 200 Navy Marines stormed his luxury hideout.

Arturo Beltrán Leyva, known as the “Boss of Bosses”, died along with six of his henchmen after the Marines surrounded a complex of flats in Cuernavaca, a holiday town south of Mexico City. Beltrán Leyva, also wanted in the US, was the highest-ranking figure to be taken out by the authorities and his death marks the biggest success yet in President Calderón’s campaign to stamp out the drugs trade.

The Marines, among Mr Calderón’s best-trained — and least corrupt — forces, had been planning the assault for months. They had tracked Beltrán Leyva’s movements since Friday, when they narrowly failed to capture him.

One of the embassy cables recently released by Wikileaks tells the back story:


SUBJECT: MEXICAN NAVY OPERATION NETS DRUG KINGPIN ARTURO
BELTRAN LEYVA

REF: MONTERREY 000453

Classified By: Political Minister Counselor Gustavo Delgado.
Reason: 1.4 (b),(d).

¶1. (S) Summary. Mexican Navy forces acting on U.S.
information killed Arturo Beltran Leyva in an operation on
December 16, the highest-level takedown of a cartel figure
under the Calderon administration. The operation is a clear
victory for the Mexican Government and an example of
excellent USG-GOM cooperation. The unit that conducted the
operation had recieved extensive U.S. training. Arturo
Beltran Leyva's death will not solve Mexico's drug problem,
but it will hopefully generate the momentum necessary to make
sustained progress against other drug trafficking
organizations. End Summary.

The Operation
-------------

¶2. (S) Mexican Navy (SEMAR) sources revealed on the night of
December 17 that SEMAR forces killed Arturo Beltran Leyva
(ABL), head of the Beltran Leyva Organization, during a
shoot-out in Cuernavaca (approximately 50 miles south of
Mexico City) that afternoon. At least three other cartel
operatives were killed during the raid, with a fourth
committing suicide. While it still has not been confirmed,
Embassy officials believe the latter to be ABL's brother,
Hector, which would mean that all Beltran Leyva brothers are
either dead or in prison. Arturo Beltran Leyva has a long
history of involvement in the Mexican drug trade, and worked
with Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman and his Sinaloa Cartel before
splitting in 2008. The rivalry between the Sinaloa and
Beltran Leyva organizations has been a key factor driving the
escalating levels of narcotics-related violence in recent
years. Born in Sinaloa, ABL has been key to the importation
and distribution of cocaine and heroin in the United States,
and also has extensive money laundering capabilities,
corruption networks, and international contacts in Colombia
and the U.S.

¶3. (C) Embassy law enforcement officials say that the arrest
operation targeting ABL began about a week prior to his death
when the Embassy relayed detailed information on his location
to SEMAR. The SEMAR unit has been trained extensively by
NORTHCOM over the past several years. SEMAR raided an
identified location, where they killed several ABL bodyguards
and arrested over 23 associates, while ABL and Hector
escaped. On Monday, the Embassy interagency linked ABL to an
apartment building located in Cuernavaca (about an hour south
of Mexico City), where ABL was in hiding. SEMAR initiated an
arrest operation on Wednesday afternoon, surrounding the
identified apartment complex, and establishing a security
perimeter. ABL's forces fired on the SEMAR operatives and
engaged in a sustained firefight that wounded three SEMAR
marines and possibly killed one. SEMAR forces evacuated
residents of the apartment complex to the gym, according to
press accounts, and no civilian casualties have so far been
reported.

Op-ed piece by Sherrod Brown

TEN years ago this fall the Senate sold out American manufacturing. By a vote of 83 to 15, it established so-called permanent normal trade relations with China, paving the way for that country to join the World Trade Organization. As a result, Chinese imports to the United States fell under the same low tariffs and high quotas as those from countries like Canada and Britain.

Today, though, our trade relations with China are anything but normal. The 2000 agreement’s proponents insisted it would enable a billion Chinese consumers to buy American products. Instead, our bilateral trade deficit has increased 170 percent, largely because China has undermined free-market competition through illegal subsidies and currency manipulation.

Unless the administration takes punitive steps in response to China’s unfair trade practices, the American economy — and the American worker — will continue to suffer.

The old agreement on trade with China was never really about promoting American manufacturing. Rather, it was a cynical ploy on the part of many multinational companies. They lobbied Congress to approve it, promising a boost to American exports; then, once it passed, they closed domestic plants, moved production overseas and sold their products back to American consumers.

As for those billion Chinese consumers? We now know that what the companies were really so excited about was a billion inexpensive Chinese workers.

True, our exports to China have increased. But reporting only exports is like reporting just one team’s score in baseball: the Cubs scoring five runs sounds good, until you hear that the Reds tallied 12.

Indeed, our exports pale in comparison to the torrent of artificially cheap Chinese imports. Economists, including free-traders, estimate that price manipulation keeps Chinese products 40 percent cheaper than comparable American-made goods.

Inexpensive products might sound nice, but we lose 13,000 net jobs for every $1 billion increase in our trade deficit. Our $226 billion deficit with China has meant shuttered factories, lost jobs and devastated communities across America.

And it’s no longer just Chinese bicycles and electronics that are flooding our markets. China will soon make half the world’s wind turbines and solar panels, most of which it plans to export to America. And, as usual, China’s clean-energy industry relies on large government subsidies, in direct violation of international trade laws.

In response, the Obama administration recently accepted a petition, filed by the United Steelworkers under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, to investigate China’s state support for clean-energy exports. If the White House finds that the support violates international trade rules, Section 301 allows it to respond with a range of aggressive measures, including tariffs.

This strategy has worked before: in the 1980s and ’90s, the United States used its 301 authority to combat Japanese and Korean subsidies and trade barriers. Though critics warned of bitter trade wars, the get-tough approach actually led to more balanced trade relationships, and even encouraged foreign investors, like Asian auto companies, to build plants in America.

In trying to get China to play fair, though, Washington has instead relied on rhetoric and moral suasion. It hasn’t worked. Only rigorous enforcement of trade rules by the Obama administration can reverse the harm caused by the permanent normal trade relations agreement.

Congress has a role to play, too: when the Senate reconvenes next month, it should vote, as the House did in September, to expand the president’s authority to impose tariffs on China or any other country that unfairly manipulates its currency.

Many politicians claim they support products “made in America.” But the phrase is more than an empty slogan; it means standing up for American manufacturers. Only by learning the lessons of “normal” trade with China — and acknowledging buyer’s remorse — can we reach a truly balanced bilateral relationship that works for America.

Senator Sherrod Brown

8% unemployment was not promised - it was predicted

We can debate the virtues of the stimulus package as to how effective it was, however it's a bit intellectually dishonest to state that there was a promise that unemployment would be 8% if the stimulus package was passed. There was a prediction and it was one that was couched with the reality of the uncertainty of our current economy.

The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is where the chart is that is creating the controversy. Yet if one were to actually read the 14 pages you'd have a different view -- one part:

It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity.

That's not a promise, it's predictions...

Anonymous group in Utah and their list of 'alleged' 1,300 illegal immigrants

It's hard to not wonder about how far people will go to try to target Hispanics after reading this story about an anonymoust group that claims from following people around they have a list of 1,300 illegal immigrants, (link). The list came with the demand that all of these on the list be deported immediately - (link) and contained information that is raising questions as to how exactly was this information obtained:

It is not known who produced the list, although Gov. Gary Herbert has called for an investigation to see if the list was compiled by someone with access to state databases containing personal information. The list contains birth dates, workplaces, addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers. Names of children are included. Several pregnant women have their exact due dates listed. All the names seem to be Hispanic.

"This is a way to terrorize people," said Tony Yapias, director of Proyecto Latino and a former state director of Hispanic affairs.

He spent much of Tuesday calling people on the list to warn them and to figure out who may have collected the information.

"I'm nauseated," he said through tears. "All of these people are terrified. I don't have words to describe how scared they are. It just breaks my heart what they are telling me."

It was reported today that at least 2 state employees were involved in helping to access information to create the list (link) - they were escorted from their jobs.

Does cutting unemployment really equal savings?

As I read this part in USA Today - (link):

The number of people collecting benefits will fall from 10.5 million to 7 million at the end of July if Congress doesn't extend the payments.

About 400,000 Americans are exhausting their benefits every week, saving the government $2 billion since June and an estimated $34 billion through November.

The government is not really saving that much money. Those who couldn't find jobs, will likely still not be able to find jobs and if they do opt for part time employment will still qualify for food stamps and other assistance programs. Those cost money...

Demand on food banks is increasing, some receive tax support, demand on social service agencies in general is increasing, some receive tax support.

All the Republicans are doing is creating a scenario where perceived savings from one area create increased expenses in another...

Wrap your credit cards in tin foil...

Technology is great, but it can at times have unintended consequences, there has been a growing concern when it comes to radio-frequency-identification (RFID) technology and security. The new ePassports and millions of credit cards use this technology, rather than having to swipe your card? You tap it and voila, your purchase is complete.

There are things you can buy to protect your credit card or your passport, like a rfid blocking wallet or RFID sleeves or even use tin foil (if you want to get some real looks at the store when you unpeel your credit card).

While card issuers say sleeves aren't necessary and claim the newer RFID cards no longer have the cardholder's name and say it would be more difficult for a thief to use the card number without a name or security code, it's still something you should be aware of. Especially since there is no "off" button and some credit card companies don't give you an option as to an RFID free card...

Law enforcement in AZ found beheaded bodies? Really?

One of the better articles that Dana Milbank has written in some time - Headless bodies and other immigration tall tales in Arizona. The only problem is most of those who believe this bunk probably don't read the Washington Post. One part I found especially noteworthy:

Jan Brewer has lost her head.

The Arizona governor, seemingly determined to repel every last tourist dollar from her pariah state, has sounded a new alarm about border violence. "Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert either buried or just lying out there that have been beheaded," she announced on local television.

Ay, caramba! Those dark-skinned foreigners are now severing the heads of fair-haired Americans? Maybe they're also scalping them or shrinking them or putting them on a spike.

But those in fear of losing parts north of the neckline can relax. There's not a follicle of evidence to support Brewer's claim.

The Arizona Guardian Web site checked with medical examiners in Arizona's border counties and the coroners said they had never seen an immigration-related beheading. I called and e-mailed Brewer's press office requesting documentation of decapitation; no reply.

I recommend the entire article, for those interested in the truth and part of the reason why so many uninformed Americans are buying the Arizona immigration hype...

The Declaration and equality...

This is kind of interesting, I actually read it hours after I posted a piece on Glass City Jungle about the little known history of the Declaration of Independence. I'm evidently far from the only person who realizes that had the original declaration gone through, slavery would not have been allowed in the new United States of America.

Hence, Fourth of July 1776, 1964, 2010 is a recommended read, though I don't agree with all of it, Part I felt most interesting:

Even as Washington paid homage to Byrd’s triumph over his origins last week, the Capitol played host to what the Supreme Court’s only black justice, Clarence Thomas, might call a “high-tech lynching.” The victim was, of all people, Thurgood Marshall — the nation’s first black solicitor general and first black Supreme Court Justice, nominated to both jobs by L.B.J.

The pretext was Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings in the Senate. Marshall had been a mentor to Kagan, for whom she clerked in 1988. He is also a hero of our history, a brave and brilliant lawyer whose advocacy in many civil rights cases, and most especially Brown v. Board of Education, helped open the doors for landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Even before last week’s ceremonial hazing of Kagan, the G.O.P.’s only national black political figure, Michael Steele, attacked her for writing approvingly of a speech Marshall had given calling the original text of the Constitution “defective” — a restrained adjective, actually, for a document that countenanced slavery. On the first day of the Kagan hearings, Marshall received many more mentions (35) than even that other Republican archenemy, President Obama, in the accounting of Talking Points Memo. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said they weren’t sure they could have voted to confirm Marshall to the court. Jon Kyl of Arizona, a state that suffered years of economic boycotts because of its opposition to the King holiday, faulted Marshall’s jurisprudence for advancing “the agenda of certain classes of litigants” (wonder who?) and for being out of the “mainstream.”

Rolling Stone and journalistic integrity...

Too late to save his job, but as more comes out it appears that some of the material in the Rolling Stone magazine article about Gen. Stanley McChrystal (link) were supposed to be off the record. It should send a huge message to those who like to make comments off the record where they want to be "an un-named source" or "Senior White House staff" that your ability to keep a job and to not face consequences solely remains in the hands of the media and they are not always going to be fair.

As someone who is a fact checker for a weekly newspaper, reading about the fact checking questions that were asked (link) raises some troubling issues. Especially where it was made clear that comments were not supposed to be included. This does tend to suggest that the accusation by some media sources, including the Telegraph (link) that:

So far from this being “terrific journalism” as my colleague Harry Mount put it, the Rolling Stone piece now looks much more like a disgrace to the profession.

The worst thing about this is it won't matter in the long run, Rolling Stone got what they wanted with this story, sensationalism. And it cost someone their job...which only adds to their story. It's also helped add to the impression that President Obama is very thin skinned - (link):

But what do McChrystal's and BP's defenestration tell us about the president of the United States? Barack Obama is a thin-skinned man and, according to Britain's Daily Telegraph, White House aides indicated that what angered the president most about the Rolling Stone piece was "a McChrystal aide saying that McChrystal had thought that Obama was not engaged when they first met last year." If finding Obama "not engaged" is now a firing offense, who among us is safe?

No journalistic justification for granting anonymity for these kinds of catty comments

I'm not a degreed, "professional" journalist, many times I am told things by anonymous sources -- typically for them to make it on the pages of one of my blogs, whatever I am told has to be confirmed by more than one source, unless they are willing to go on the record. I understand many don't feel that way preferring to go for the "gotcha" mentality of the moment. A perfect example is Ben Smith reporting Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet. How do we really know that was said is the first question, how do we really know it was a "Senior White House official" -- then there is the reality that if such a comment was made, it was most likely made off the record. Most of the really juicy things I get told are, off the record.

Take this incident with the recent one created by Talking Points Memo related to did John Boehner understand the question or not -- the reality is the reporter knew Boehner's position before. While I agree with Glenn Greenwald about the cowardice aspect, and the title of this post which comes from his Salon piece, I also think this type of journalism is going to continue to degrade the credibility of internet reporting. The temptation to gain some momentary fame has already created scenarios where bloggers have made things up. Including making up fake people to attack yourself on a blog so you can play victim, that's happened more than once in the Ohio blogosphere alone.

Rachel Corrie not allowed to pass through to Gaza

The Israeli government boarded the ship, took it to port, will supposedly inspect what was trying to be taken to Gaza and the Israeli government is claiming they will deliver it by land to the Gaza. Including the cement that has been prevented from being sent to Gaza.

It's also worth pointing out that there was an Al Jazeera reporter on the earlier flotilla ship where the deaths happened, he took video, it was confiscated and has not been returned. The only video being shown was taken by the Israeli government.

MV Rachel Corrie headed for Gaza

Another humanitarian effort, as reported by CNN is on it's way to the Gaza. While Israel has tried to state that the blockade is to prevent weapons, it's very clear there are no weapons being sent by those trying to help.

Unless of course the Israelis believe that Irish Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Maguire and Former Assistant U.N. Secretary-General Denis Halliday would be involved in weapon smuggling. They have refused offers to offload their donations. Which makes sense since there is no guarantee Israel would ensure the materials made it to Gaza and if such offloading worked? There would be no need for people willing to risk their lives for items such as:

...550 tons of cement to help rebuild schools, homes and other buildings destroyed in Gaza.

Maguire said the ship is also carrying "tons" of writing materials donated by Norway, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment -- including wheelchairs donated by Scotland -- and toys.

There's no humanitarian crisis in Gaza? Really?

There are times I shake my head in wonderment at the rhetoric people put out there to try to justify the needless suffering and murder that is taking place. What's happening right now with Gaza is a perfect example.

The House Republican Conference just sent out an email that highlights what U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference said to CNN, one part of it:

And let's be clear, there's not a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Israel allows to be transferred or transfers 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid into Gaza every week. The hospitals are fully stocked. The food markets are fully stocked. This flotilla was embarked on a mission to challenge the blockade. Security forces, Israeli defense forces challenged it, and violence ensued. But ultimately Israel has a right to defend itself.

Pence is not alone in that mantra, as this blog post by Sarah Posner points out.

It seems just about everywhere but in Israel or the U.S. it's realized that the Gaza blockade is causing a humanitarian crisis and it's wrong. From Brookings:

Third, the strong international reaction was in the first place connected to the circumstances of the episode itself: the use of force by a well-trained army against a flotilla of civilian international activists in international waters. However, the depth of the reaction cannot be divorced from the context: The blockade of Gaza has been almost universally opposed in the international community as being inhumane, and the Israelis who have argued that removing the blockade would reward Hamas have rejected the requests of everyone else, including the United States. While Gaza has not been front-page news in the United States since the end of the Gaza war in January 2009, the issue remained center stage, certainly in Arab and Muslim countries, but also elsewhere. It is hard to see that how the issue of the attack on the flotilla can be addressed without addressing the blockade itself.

It seems the way to avoid addressing the blockade itself is to try to perpetuate the myth that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza...

James Carville's rage...

I recommend reading James Carville's Rage by Ruben Navarrette. I also recommend watching what Carville said on Good Morning America since it's referenced as a part of the article:

History of HGH

Maurice Raben took HGH from human pituitary glands to successfully treat a GH-deficient boy in the 1950's. The limited ability to treat children who experienced growth stunting began but problems continued as the main source of this was through a autopsies.

Then a synthetic formulation was made, which created controversy when it was not used for the original purpose, which was to treat children and a few other rare health conditions. Now hgh is still out there in some forms but is not from humans and is marketed as a way to prevent aging. Some people obtain it in an injectable form, of which concern regarding side effects has been raised. The FDA has not approved other medical use of human growth hormone other than to treat 7 specific medical conditions.

Challenging the constitutionality of the number of House Reps

I received this via e-mail and thought it was an interesting item to pass along:

Unique Three-Judge Panel Grants Plaintiffs Oral Argument in Historic Lawsuit Challenging Size of Congress

OXFORD, Miss., May 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Plaintiffs learned late last week that their request for oral argument was granted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Legal counsel for the plaintiffs, Michael Farris, also submitted the final brief in the case last week. The lawsuit, Clemons v. Department of Commerce, challenges the constitutionality of the law passed in 1929 that permanently freezes the number of representatives in the U.S. House at 435 members due to the fact that such a small number inevitably produces an apportionment which violates the Constitution's "one-person, one-vote" requirement to an extraordinary degree.
"We applaud the Court's decision to hold oral argument for this issue which is so vital to our representative form of government," said Scott Scharpen, founder and president of Apportionment.US, the non-profit organization coordinating the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Speaking about the defendants in the case, Scharpen adds, "The government takes a truly radical and anti-constitutional position in this lawsuit, asserting that inequality of voting strength between congressional districts is not important. Furthermore, despite filing over 70 pages of brief material, the government never once affirms the right of voters to equal representation--a right that the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized as fundamental."
This is the same federal government, however, that forces states to achieve precise equality of congressional districts within a small fraction of 1%, yet at the national level, the federal government permits inequality between the smallest and largest districts to exceed 80%. This disparity is projected to become even more inequitable as a result of the 2010 apportionment.
Oral argument will be heard in Oxford, Mississippi on May 28, 2010 at 10:30 am before the three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judge Leslie H. Southwick, Chief District Judge Michael P. Mills, and District Judge W. Allen Pepper.
For a copy of the Plaintiffs' final brief, visit www.apportionment.us/case.html.
Apportionment.US (www.apportionment.us) is a non-profit organization dedicated to achieving equal and appropriate representation in the U.S. House of Representatives for current and future generations of Americans. The organization also educates the public about the Constitution and House apportionment, as well as promotes the benefits of smaller congressional districts resulting from an increase in House membership.

Another economic crisis predicted within a decade...

I know this is a bit long, but it shares some interesting information I was sent via e-mail - from the Peterson Foundation:

HIGHEST RANKING ECONOMIC OFFICIALS FROM BOTH PARTIES FORESEE ANOTHER U.S. ECONOMIC CRISIS WITHIN 10 YEARS UNLESS U.S. TAKES IMMEDIATE ACTION ON STRUCTURAL DEFICIT

Peter G. Peterson Foundation Survey of Economic Leaders from Past Eight Administrations and Congress Shows Bipartisan Agreement that U.S. Needs to Cut Spending and Raise Taxes to Avoid an Economic Crisis

NEW YORK, NY – An unprecedented survey of the most senior economic officials from the last eight administrations and Congressional leaders from the past 30 years shows that there is broad consensus that failure to address the country’s long-term structural deficit challenges would lead to another economic crisis within the next ten years. There is also consensus around the solution to the deficit problem: it must include both cutting spending and increasing taxes, according to a group of more than fifty former top economic officials.

The survey topline can be found here:
http://www.pgpf.org/resources/PGPF_Fiscal_Survey_Topline.pdf

The survey respondents polled were former senior officials from the past eight administrations under Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson, as well as members of Congress, with significant experience on fiscal issues, including:

Secretaries of the Treasury
Federal Reserve Presidents and members of the Board of Governors
Directors of the Office of Management & Budget
Council of Economic Advisors Chairs
Directors of the Congressional Budget Office
Senate Budget Committee Chairmen/Ranking Members
House Budget Committee Chairmen/Ranking Members
House Ways and Means Committee Chairmen/Ranking Members

The survey was commissioned by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (PGPF) as part of its mission to increase public awareness of the nature and urgency of the country’s key fiscal challenges and was released in the days leading up to the first meeting of President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform as well as the Foundation’s “2010 Fiscal Summit: America’s Crisis and A Way Forward.” The survey was conducted by Global Strategy Group, a public opinion research firm.

“It is significant to see such an overwhelming proportion of these former senior officials, Republicans and Democrats alike, agree that we must address our long-term structural deficits to avoid another economic crisis, and that we must do so now,” said Peter G. Peterson, founder and Chairman of PGPF. “Addressing our fiscal challenges will require being open-minded about solutions and taking a comprehensive approach in which all options are seriously considered. By acting now, we can meet these challenges in a way that secures the vital programs on which so many Americans rely, and ensures that resources will still be available for investments for future growth in areas like education, research and critical infrastructure.”

“The opinions of these federal government experts clearly demonstrate that there is a bipartisan consensus that spending cuts and tax increases are both necessary to address our unsustainable structural deficits,” said David Walker, President & CEO of PGPF. “Given increasing concerns among Americans, and with this bipartisan consensus of experts in mind, it is time to set aside partisan battles and bridge ideological divides to focus on sensible solutions.”


The survey found that top former economic officials believe:

· We need to change course. Democrats and Republicans unanimously feel that the federal government is currently on an unsustainable long term fiscal path. (100% Dems and Reps strongly agree)

· Systemic issues must be addressed. Democrats and Republicans unanimously consider long term structural deficits more threatening to the country’s economic future than short term deficits. (100% of Dems and 93% Reps say long term structural deficits are much more threatening; 7% of Reps say they are somewhat more threatening)

· Inaction will lead to crisis. More than 9 in 10 Republicans (98%) and Democrats (94%) believe if we do not act soon to address the nation’s long term fiscal situation we are heading for another major economic crisis.
– Most Republicans (88%) and Democrats (75%) expect an economic crisis within the next ten years if we do not act.
– And practically nine in ten Republicans (92%) and Democrats (82%) believe the government should begin to take action within the next 1-2 years to address the long term fiscal situation.

· Elements of a crisis. Majorities of Democrats and Republicans believe that without measures to address the longer term structural deficit challenges it is very likely we will encounter:
– Rapid growth in federal mandatory spending crowding out other important public investments (80% Reps very likely/71% Dems)
– Significant rise in interest rates (71% Reps very likely/65% Dems)
– An eventual decline in Americans’ standard of living (65% Reps very likely/53% Dems)

· Tax increases and spending cuts must be part of the solution. Two-thirds of Republicans (68%) and more than eight in ten (88%) Democrats believe that solving the country’s long terms structural deficits will include both spending cuts and tax increases.

· Democrats and Republicans share an open-minded approach.
– Practically all Democrats believe entitlement reform (100%), overall spending cuts (100%) and significant decreases in discretionary spending (94%) should be seriously considered.
– 72% of Republicans believe tax increases should be seriously considered in addition to 56% who believe significant decreases in defense spending should be seriously considered.

# # #

Methodological Note: Global Strategy Group conducted a survey among top economic leaders from the last eight administrations and Congress between April 5 and April 26, 2010. Individuals who are currently serving in public office were not solicited for participation in accordance with the research design. For the purposes of analysis, respondents are assigned a party identification based on their personal affiliation (if an elected official) or by the administration that appointed them.


About PGPF

Founded by Peter G. Peterson with a commitment of $1 billion, the Foundation is dedicated to increasing public awareness of the nature and urgency of key fiscal challenges threatening America's future and to accelerating action on them. To address these challenges successfully, we work to bring Americans together to find sensible, long-term solutions that transcend age, party lines and ideological divides in order to achieve real results. For more information, see www.PGPF.org

Abuse of polling data has a long pedigree

I've shared my thoughts on polling and how polling data is used many times here and on Glass City Jungle. I said, "AMEN" more than once when reading this article, Climategate Claptrap, I by Mark Hertsgaard. I highly recommend reading all of it, but one part that I felt was important:

Advocates across the political spectrum habitually cite polls to "prove" that the public holds a certain view of a given issue, even when the truth is more complicated or even contradictory. This appears to be happening with the climate issue. As the Obama administration and Congressional leaders prepare to introduce new climate legislation, mainstream media have given fresh prominence to deniers' claims of fraud and rampant error on the part of climate scientists. Meanwhile, surveys by Gallup and other leading pollsters are being spun as evidence that the deniers are gaining ground among the public, which is supposedly divided over whether to take action against rising temperatures and the droughts, storms and sea-level rise they trigger. A closer look, however, suggests that public opinion has changed very little. What has changed is the message coming from the media, key parts of which have reverted to their longstanding posture of scientific illiteracy and de facto complicity with the deniers' disinformation campaign.

Did you know abestos comes from mines?

The picture is a mine in Canada, where chrysotile asbestos is mined and where 95 percent of the asbestos mined in Canada is shipped out of the country. It is believed that using the right chemical formulation makes asbestos not have the same risks earlier products using it had, yet it was known for well over a hundred years that there were health concerns related to the older forms of asbestos. While the illness and death of those exposed to asbestos was the source of lawsuits even back in the late 1920's, Mesothelioma was not recognized until the 1960's. While it is considered a rare form of cancer, there have been a number of well known people who have died from it. Including Steve McQueen, though was his exposure from his earlier years in the navy or from his race car days when asbestos was used as an insulation in protective wear worn by drivers has been debated.

E-commerce...did you know?

While there is usually a lot of chatter when it comes to Cyber Monday and online shopping, did you know that the Census Department actually estimates E-commerce?

The numbers are of course not recent, since we are dealing with the government and statistics, they are from 2007, but when you look at the report link to pdf you can see the main areas. I was surprised that motor vehicles and parts dealers ranked so highly as to total sales online.